by Kate McFarland | Nov 17, 2017 | News
The US charity GiveDirectly has officially launched its trial of basic income in rural Kenya, and is now enrolling experimental participants.
The US$30 million experiment will be the largest trial of basic income to date, in terms of both size and duration. All residents of about 120 rural Kenyan villages, comprising more than 16,000 people in total, will receive some type of unconditional cash transfers during the experiment; some of these villages, moreover, will receive the universal basic income for twelve years.
It is also unique among current experiments in that it is designed as a randomized controlled trial in which the experimental units are villages rather than individuals. This means that, unlike the studies occurring in Finland, Ontario, the Netherlands, and elsewhere, the GiveDirectly experiment will be able to capture community-level effects of the basic income [*].
The experiment will include three treatment groups. In two groups, villages will receive a universal basic income of about US$23 per resident per month (roughly half of the average income in rural Kenya). In one group, comprising 80 villages, the payments will continue for two years; in the other, comprising 40 villages, the payments will continue for twelve years. In the third treatment group, all residents of each village will receive a single lump-sum payment equal in amount to the two-year basic income (i.e. about US$276). Another 100 rural Kenyan villages have been randomly assigned to a control group.
Chief Financial Officer Joe Huston announced the official launch in a blog post dated November 13, declaring, “It has begun! As I write, field officers in Bomet County, Kenya are beginning to enroll the first (post-pilot) households into the largest basic income initiative in history.”
The launch had been delayed from its originally anticipated date in September, due in part to political disruptions in Kenya surrounding a contested presidential election.
Since October 2016, GiveDirectly has been running a preliminary pilot in a single Kenyan village. All residents of this village (numbering 95 at the start of the pilot) were guaranteed a monthly unconditional cash payments, which will continue in this village for 12 years.
This preliminary study was conducted to help the researchers fine-tune the implementation of the full-scale experiment, and data collected from the pilot village will not be included in the analysis of the experiment. Because of the latter, GiveDirectly has decided to make data and information from pilot village available to the public (no data collected from the experiment itself will publicized until the trial has concluded). For example, the charity has published responses to a survey of participants and is now running a three-part series on “lessons drawn” from a year of observing the pilot village.
[*] In describing the experiment on its website, GiveDirectly suggests that it is interested mainly in individual-level (rather than community-level) effects of basic income, stating, “We will assess the impact of a basic income against a broad set of metrics, including: economic status (income, assets, standard of living); time use (work, education, leisure, community involvement); risk-taking (migrating, starting businesses); gender relations (especially female empowerment); aspirations and outlook on life.” This does not render the community-level effects irrelevant, however, since individual attitudes and behavior can be influenced by social multiplier effects.
Correction (Nov 17): An earlier version of this article stated that the experiment would include 200 villages in total (with 80 in the lump-sum payment treatment group), amounting to around 26,000 total recipients. This statement was based on out-of-date information, and has now been corrected. In fact, approximately 120 villages will be included in the study (totaling more than 16,000 recipients), with a reduction of the number of villages in the lump-sum treatment arm.
Reviewed by Russell Ingram
Photo CC BY-SA 2.0 David Brossard
by Jason Burke Murphy | Nov 14, 2017 | News
By Jason Burke Murphy
On October 3rd, the Social Work Department at the University of Manitoba held a Symposium on the Mincome Experiment conducted in Dauphin, Manitoba in the 1970’s. This included presentations by the Director of the Mincome Experiment in the 1970’s, Ron Hikel.
The resources from the Mincome Symposium held at the University of Manitoba (including the two papers presented and an audio clip of Ron Hikel’s interview with UMFM) have been posted on the Faculty of Social Work website.
The symposium featured Ron Hikel, who was Director of the Manitoba Basic Annual Income (Mincome) Experiment. His paper is linked here: Piloting Basic Income in Canada: Lessons from the Past, Possibilities in the Present.
Shortly after the symposium, Hikel also conducted an interview you can find here. Wayne Simpson, Greg Mason, and Ryan Godwin, of the Department of Economics at the University of Manitoba also wrote this paper: The Manitoba Basic Annual Income Experiment: Lessons Learned 40 Years Later.
The conference was moderated by Jim Mulvale and Sid Frankel of the Faculty of Social Work at the University of Manitoba.
More information at:
David Calnitsky, “‘More Normal than Welfare’: The Mincome Experiment, Stigma, and Community Experience”
Evelyn Forget on The Legacy of Mincome & other Basic Income Experiment
Jenna van Draanen interview
Claire Bott, “Evelyn Forget/Northern Institute publish new report on BIG”, Basic Income News, August 1st 2017
Kate McFarland, “Overview of Current Basic Income Related Experiments (October 2017)“, October 19th 2017
by Kate McFarland | Nov 8, 2017 | News
In an interview with BBC News, Nobel Laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz warned that basic income (citizen’s income) should not be the current priority of the Government of Scotland.
On September 5, First Minister Nicola Sturgeon announced that the Scottish Government would provide funding for basic income trials in the regions of Fife, Glasgow, North Ayrshire, and Edinburgh, where pilot studies of the policy had received the support of local authorities.
During October’s Inclusive Growth Conference, Sturgeon reaffirmed the government’s commitment to supporting trials of basic income, despite acknowledging that the policy might prove infeasible in the end:
Despite the fact that this has some critics, we are going to work with interested local authorities to fund research into the feasibility of a citizen’s basic income scheme.
I should stress our work on this is at a very early stage. It might turn out not to be the answer, it might turn out not to be feasible.
But as work and employment changes as rapidly as it is doing, I think it’s really important that we look and are prepared to be open-minded about the different ways in which we can support individuals to participate fully in the new economy [1].
Stiglitz, who has served as an economic advisor to the Scottish Government since 2012, believes that pursuing a basic income would represent misaligned priorities in light of Scotland’s fiscal constraints. Instead, the distinguished economist urges the government to prioritize benefits targeted to those who need them most, job creation to ensure a job to all who want one, and a livable income for all who work full-time.
When asked about the UK’s interest in basic income during an interview with the BBC’s Sunday Politics Scotland, he replied:
I think the point of a citizen’s income is that it recognizes rights of ordinary individuals–that supporting individuals, social protection, is not aimed at those who have been left behind, but is a basic part of our society.
But I do worry about two things. One, as you say, there are fiscal constraints. Should the scarce money be used to give everyone a basic amount, or should it be targeted at those who have particularly strong needs? I think there needs to be some targeting.
Secondly, over the long run, our responsibility as a society is to make sure that everybody who wants a job can get one. And the underlying problems of the lack of employment and lack of adequate pay–anybody who works full time ought to have a liveable income–those are the issues that, in the long run, we need to address.
Stiglitz has previously been hailed in the basic income community as one of a long Nobel-winning economists who have (reportedly) endorsed basic income. His presumed endorsement took place at the World Summit on Technological Unemployment in February 2015, when he was asked if he supported basic income as a policy response to technological unemployment, and replied “Yes, that’s part of the solution,” before going on to stress that basic income alone is not a complete solution.
In October 2016, Stiglitz again said that “the idea of a basic income is a good idea” in response to a question from Vox reporter Ezra Klein (“What you do think about a universal basic income in America?”). He added, however, that he had not yet made up his mind about the question of whether it is better to target limited resources to those most in need:
If you don’t have a lot of resources, isn’t it better to try to target the limited resources you have at those who really, really need it, the people who are disabled, the people who are elderly without other sources of income, a variety of people who are seriously disadvantaged. The problem with the universal basic income is that you give a flat amount to a large amount of people, and that means, because you have so many people, you can’t give as much as you would to help those who most need it.
He went to note that, “on the other side of the coin, those who most need it have difficulty in navigating the bureaucracy” — a problem that would be avoided by a basic income.
It appears, then, that Stiglitz has not changed his mind on basic income so much as determined that, in Scotland and the UK, fiscal constraints and the need for targeted benefits outweigh the advantages promised by universality.
Watch Stiglitz field a question basic income on Sunday Politics Scotland:
[1] Quoted in Tom Martin, “Sturgeon vows to press ahead with radical benefits overhaul, despite official warnings,” Express, October 21, 2017 (accessed October 27, 2017).
Photo: “Old Scotland” CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 Tatters ✾
by Cordelia Holst | Nov 6, 2017 | News
On Thursday, October 19th, activists, social justice advocates, economists, futurists, venture capitalists, writers, community organizers and politicians gathered at the Old Mint in San Francisco – a symbolically poetic building – to talk about Cash. Organized by the Economic Security Project, the goal of the conference was to “reimagine what an economy built on the well-being of everyone could look like.”
Cara Rose DeFabio and Sandhya Anantharaman were the MC’s for the day, introducing each segment, panel or presentation, showcasing a range of thoughts around how cash transfers can shape society. See the full schedule here.
The conference embraced a range of reasons why giving cash through a Universal Basic Income is an appealing concept. Most segments were in a panel format with experts in their field, moderated by one of their own. This allowed participants to see the differences in thinking across the movement as well as its broad appeal, regardless of what brought these thinkers into to the movement. The first panel was a discussion on automation’s effect on the work force, and how UBI could provide economic security during retraining, between jobs, or to supplement part time work. Another panel, with representatives from three different venture funds, discussed how a UBI might encourage entrepreneurship, while a third panel talked through historical and current systemic racist and sexist policies and practices, and how a combination of a UBI plus a wealth tax to help fund it could course correct extreme inequality.
A general acceptance for the benefit of cash transfers seemed to be the most basic common denominator. The audience was educated on the results of past cash transfer and basic income experiments, as well as updates on current experiments. You can view a high level video of some of the outcomes of these experiments here.
Mayor Tubbs of Stockton talked about his plans for a UBI in his city. Elizabeth Rhodes also gave an update on the Oakland Y-Combinator project. Then Joe Huston, CFO of Give Directly spoke to the effectiveness of cash transfers and positive outcomes in their work in Kenya and Uganda. He announced that Give Directly is now involved in its first US based project, where they are giving debit cards with $1500 directly to victims of Hurricane Harvey in the Houston area. He noted the work that still must be done changing perceptions around what people will do when they are given cash unconditionally, joking that employers don’t say, “I would like to give this employee their bonus, but I’m worried they might drink it away,” yet this is somehow common thinking that needs to be changed based on research results.
Aisha Nyandoro, CEO of Springboard to Opportunity spoke about where the current Welfare system in the US fails. She illustrated the challenges that families living in poverty in Mississippi have piecing together welfare benefits from the government – housing voucher, electricity voucher, and food stamps. The system creates poverty traps and the benefits don’t cover many of the real needs these families have, but cash would. Cash would also limit interaction with the system and remove the feeling of being judged, as well as the stigmas around welfare.
Damareo Cooper, Director of the Ohio Organizing Collaborative shared his personal story also highlighting how the current welfare system and prison system fails children and young people, making a convincing case for switching to cash. Almaz Zelleke, professor of Political Science at NYU Shanghai, went further, explaining why a UBI must be paid as cash and not a negative income tax.
Throughout the day, however, there seemed to be a lack of consensus on aspects surrounding universality and unconditionality of a cash transfer policy. The range of standpoints could be seen clearly in a panel with Hawaii State Representative Chris Lee and Alaska State Senator Bill Wielechowski, as well as Joseph Sanberg, the founder of Golden State Opportunity Foundation. Bill educated the audience on the Alaska permanent fund. On the aspect of Universality and Unconditionality he said, “Universality is critical. If the policy was needs-based it would diminish it. The fund is framed as each resident’s ownership of shared resources. This is something that Alaskans share together.”
On the other side of the issue, Joseph Sanberg said, “The social contract is work and you will be able to have economic security.” He tied work requirements to the right to economic security and his efforts have been focused on California Earned Income Tax Credits.
Chris Lee from Hawaii seemed to be working out his state’s position on the issue, noting that for their Earned Income Tax Credits they have expanded the definition of work, looking at where people are spending their hours – for example, caregiving. He did note that his task force is looking at a universal benefit across all economic classes.
Aisha Nyandoro cited the work she does as evidence that work requirements are difficult and policy makers are out of touch on the issue. She invited any policy makers that wanted to get in touch to call her. Anne Price, President of Insight Center for Community Economic Development, explained how racism and sexism shaped current welfare policy around judging who is deserving and who is undeserving. She noted that it is degrading to be on the receiving end of morality, and shared her vision for dignity for all: universal benefits – working or not.
How to pay for it was touched on by some, with ideas ranging from a wealth tax to combat inequality, to a shared patrimony dividends, like Alaska, or some combination of these revenues.
Other highlights of the day included a session by Jane McGonigal from the Institute for the future, and A Frank Conversation about Money with Chris Hughes, co-founder of Facebook and Co-Chair of the hosting Economic Security Project. Jane coached the audience on how to create empathy for our future selves and envision a future with Universal Basic Income. Anna Sale from “Death, Sex, and Money” interviewed Chris Hughes about his thoughts and feelings around his own fortune and why he supports Universal Basic Income.
The organizing team is clearly very competent and professional, as the entire conference ran very smoothly from check in, AV, lunch, and seating. All details were thought out and executed well. Participants had many opportunities to make connections and discuss the themes.
All in all, this was a very important gathering for the movement.
by Tyler Prochazka | Oct 30, 2017 | News
In a sign of the major progress Universal Basic Income (UBI) has made in Asia, the United Nations Development Program in Beijing hosted a roundtable discussion on basic income last week. Professors from China’s most influential universities spoke at the roundtable about the potential for a basic income pilot program in China.
Patrick Haverman is the UNDP Deputy Country Director for China. Haverman said he wants to work with academia and government to determine if basic income experiments in different areas of China are feasible.
“With the Sustainable Development Goals firmly focused on the need to ‘leave no one behind’, careful consideration of a wide variety of responses will be essential,” Haverman said during his opening remarks. ”It is very important that we can foster collaborative discussions around potential options to address poverty and inequality into the future, and the role of UBI should not be overlooked.”
The roundtable also discussed the benefits and likely challenges of implementing a Universal Basic Income in China. A large topic was how UBI could improve on the dibao system, which is China’s means-tested unconditional cash transfer program. Dibao currently has issues with targeting the subsidies toward people in poverty, which many participants at the roundtable noted UBI’s universality could potentially alleviate.
Shi Li, a professor at Beijing Normal University, said Chinese people in poverty receive the dibao because of poor targeting. In his research, Li and other researchers found that nearly 88 percent of poor residents in China do not receive dibao stipends. Remarkably, administrative costs of means-testing were three times more than the actual transferred amount.
The large size and economic disparities across the mainland mean it may be difficult to implement a national UBI that is not adjusted based on residence, others noted.
The event was co-hosted by the International Labour Organization, which presented on the potential disruption of automation on employment during the roundtable. Haverman said an advantage in China is that smartphone penetration is high and many businesses now accept digital payments. This means it may be most efficient to send basic incomes to digital wallets.
“Almost everyone has a phone, so if we find a pilot zone I think we should take a look at it,” Haverman said.
Furui Cheng an associate professor at China University of Political Science and Law’s Business School, said the China Basic Income/Social Dividend Research Network is working with UNDP to plan the next steps for a pilot program in China.
Cheng said they are looking to work with local governments and raise money from technology companies.
“Basic income is the probable alternative for the future global social security system, which is facing unprecedent challenges now,” Cheng said.
“We shall learn the experiences of global existing basic income experiments as much as possible, and we welcome any suggestions from any supporters,” she said.
Zhiyuan Cui, a professor at Tsinghua University, has written how China could emulate the Alaska Permanent Fund to implement UBI. Cui explained that Jay Hammond, the Alaskan governor who created the Permanent Fund, said he often felt “closer to Beijing than Washington DC.”
Yang Tuan of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences said the size of China means it would be a good place “to come up with many types of experiments” for basic income.Tuan, who supported the implementation of dibao when she was working for China’s social security system, said the economic dynamics of China have changed since dibao started.
“(In the past) I have been against western mechanisms of social security,” she said. “But today I think the context of China is different.”
According to Haverman, the UNDP is planning to release up to three more working papers, addressing topics such as financing UBI in China, as well as its effect on work hours.
To see UNDP China’s press release, go here.
To see the original UNDP China working paper, go here.
To inquire about the UNDP project contact Cheng Furui: cfr1978@163.com
